Controversy over the process used to review and recommend approval of requests for 2% tribal gaming funds is nothing new.
More than 20 years ago, county commissioners were also sparring over what agencies, organizations and, at that time, most anyone who wanted to apply did.
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB), together with (5) additional Native American tribes, signed a consent judgment in the case of, Tribes v. Engler, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The judgment states each tribe shall determine which local unit or units of government shall receive payments and the amounts. Guidelines governing the tribes in making awards state that are based upon compensating local units of government for governmental services provided to the tribes and for impacts associated with the existence and location of the tribal casino in its vicinity.
But commissioners haven’t been able to come to an agreement on how 2% requests are processed.
Commissioner Will Bunek has a strict interpretation of 2% procedure. This week, he reiterated that government requests should be given priority over non-profits.
Other board members have said that non-profits seeking 2% funding (Leelanau Christian Neighbors for example) provide services that could fall upon the county.
Commissioners have also said that the funds will be distributed to someone and lacking any applications, those dollars will be going elsewhere.
Commissioners unanimously recommend approval of requests from the Sheriff’s Office; Parks and Recreation Commission; Probate and Family Court; and 13th Circuit Court.
Two requests from the Inland Seas Education Association and Home Sweet Home, a non-profit housing corporation, were acted on separately with identical 6-1 votes, with Bunek opposed.
At the direction of the county board, Jim Dyer, county administrator, has drawn up a proposed policy for board consideration.
The new process would include a committee review of the grant applications as well as the county administrator before recommendations for full board action.
While we have yet to take an editorial position on the proposed policy, we are pleased with the board’s effort to tackle this longstanding issue.
